In Defense of Same Sex Marriage

By D.T. Holt

With the passage of proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, California has become the first state to give the right of same sex marriage and then take it away. It is ironic that a single election could include a triumph for the civil rights movement, in the election of Barack Obama as the first African American President, as well as a major setback in the rights of homosexuals, which many see as one of the major civil rights issues of our era.

There seems to be a lot of debate from both sides of gay rights issues as to whether homosexuality is a choice. While it seems ludicrous to think that anyone would choose a sexual orientation with the real potential to make them social outcasts, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a choice. Why would that make any difference to the argument either for or against gay marriage? Aren’t all relationships between consenting adults by definition a choice? We all choose the person that we will spend our lives with.

Many would say that we should give homosexuals access to the same rights as heterosexual couples, just don’t call it marriage. This is where we get into the idea of civil unions which, theoretically, carry all of the same rights as a marriage but with their own fancy, non-threatening to heterosexuals, name. If the rights are in fact the same, why not just call it a marriage and be done with it? Does our society really have the right to decide which marriages between consenting adults are valid and which are not? I’m not generally a proponent of the fabled “slippery slope” but, isn’t it possible that this paves the way for the return of interracial marriage bans? If two grown men are denied the civil right of marriage because a segment of society sees their relationship as immoral, who’s to say that there aren’t other marriages which large numbers of Americans see as immoral? What about a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman?

For reasons that I have never understood, there seems to be a real fear of the effect same sex marriage will have on so-called traditional marriage. How does a change to the legal definition of an institution inherently threaten that institution? Proponents of gay marriage are in fact attempting to change our legal or civil definition of marriage to be a union between two consenting adults. They are not asking churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin to throw open their doors to the flood of same sex couples looking to take part in the holy sacrament of marriage. Instead, they are simply asking that they be afforded the same rights of any other couple that has decided to legally formalize their relationship.

It is my belief that the aversion to same sex marriage is more about an aversion to homosexuality than it is about some perceived threat to the institution of marriage. To allow gays the same legal rights to matrimony that straight couples enjoy, is to validate what is seen as the homosexual lifestyle. If same sex couples are given the right to marriage it will be tantamount to a societal acceptance of their sexuality as no more remarkable than a straight man with a preference for blonde haired women. Opponents of gay marriage, along with supporters of the separate but equal concept of Civil Unions, are really opposing the acceptance of homosexuals as an ordinary segment of our society. This is an argument that is based in fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to confront the changing social mores that are a necessary part of the evolution of a vibrant, multicultural society.